Bright's Estate
Bright's Estate
Opinion of the Court
The testatrix provided by her will that her “ dwelling house, lot and appurtenances ” should be appraised and that her son Hunter, the appellant, should have the option to take it at the appraisement, and that in the event of his declining to take it the option should be extended to her other children in the order of their ages. Eight months after the date of her will and twenty-four days before her death, she signed the following writing; “ To Hunter F. Bright, Ashland, Pa. I have bequeathed to my son, Hunter F. Bright, the house I now live in for the sum of one thousand dollars, as expressed in my will written by Judge Marr.” Eighteen months after the will was proved, the register admitted this writing to probate as a codicil. This appeal is from the order of tbe orphans’ court
Reference
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Will—Codicil—Probate. Testatrix directed that her “dwelling house, lot and appurtenances” should be appraised, and that a son named should have .the option to take it at the appraisement, and that in the event of his declining the option should be extended to her other children in the order of their ages. Eight months after the date of the will and twenty-four days before her death she signed a paper addressed to the son named in the will as follows: “I have bequeathed to my son (naming him) the house I now live in for the sum-of one thousand dollars as expressed in my will written by Judge Marr.” Eighteen months after the will was proved the register admitted this writing to probate as a codicil. On appeal from the register the orphans’ court by agreement heard the case on its merits having before it only the will and the unattached writing. The court held (1), that there was nothing to identify the will proved as the will referred to in the writing; (2) that there was nothing to identify the “dwelling house, lot and appurtenances” named in the will as the dwelling house named in the writing; (3) that the declaration in the writing was as to a past act and not of a present intention to make a disposition of the property to take effect after death. Held, that the decree of the court reversing the register should be sustained.